WGI

Prop osal Paper s Series

World Governance Index

Why Should World Governance Be
Evaluated, and for What Purpose?

Version 2.0
2011 Report
Proposal Papers
The Forum for a new World Governance encourages the development and circulation of new
ideas in several languages and in a large number of countries in the form of Proposal Papers.
The papers present the most relevant proposals for generating the breakthroughs and changes
needed to build a new, fairer and more sustainable world governance.

Published as a series, the Proposal Papers cover five broad categories of world governance:
• Environment and management of the planet
• The economy and globalization
• Politics, state structures, and institutions
• Peace, security, and armed conflicts
• Knowledge, science, education, and the information and communication society

Forum for a new World Governance

June 2010
www.world-governance.org

Translation: Marina Urquidi

Illustrations: Dominique Monteau
Graphic design: Patrick Lescure
Printing: Causses et Cévenne

This Proposal Paper is available under a Creative Commons License allowing users to use,
reproduce and circulate it on condition that they mention the title, authors and Forum for a new
World Governance. This Proposals Paper cannot be modified or sold. This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a
copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Cover illustration: Carmen Piemonte, Lutrans I, 2010 (www.carlunelarte.cl)

 World
Governance Index
Why Should World Governance Be Evaluated,
and for What Purpose?

Version 2.0
2011 Report
 World Governance Index

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
World Governance Index - WGI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Usefulness and Uses of the WGI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Part I: Developing the World Governance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Defining the World Governance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
World-governance goals and fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Establishing the conditions for sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Reducing inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Establishing lasting peace while respecting diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
World Governance Index 2011 – version 2.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Methodology and Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Part II: Results and Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2011 WGI Global Ranking in Descending Order (with rank in 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
WGI Regional Rankings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recapitulation Table per Country for the Five WGI Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4 EU / OECD Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Latin America / The Caribbean Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Africa Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Asia Pacific Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CIS / Central Asia / Balkans Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Arab States Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Copyright Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
World Governance Index

Overview

P
romoting, on a world scale, a legitimate, effective, and democratic gov-
ernance, and forming a responsible, plural, and united community within
which the system of governance holds an essential and vital position con-
stitute the main objectives of the Forum for a new World Governance (FnWG).
The challenge is ambitious. The idea is to overcome the many obstacles of a world
in crisis: persisting tensions, conflicts and wars, paralysis or failure of regional and
international organizations, helpless nation-states, and the obsolescence of an ide-
ological model that appeared in the seventeenth century.
Reaching these objectives requires the active and constructive involvement of
players who are able not only to contribute innovative thinking on world govern-
ance but also to offer proposals that are socially and politically viable, in order to 5
make it possible to get out of our current dead-end situation.

World Governance Index - WGI

It was in the framework of this thinking on the major challenges that global, or
world governance would inevitably have to face that the forum launched, in 2008,
the World Governance Index - WGI project. The idea is to develop a “tool” that
should allow the players in charge of governance to become aware of the issues and
problems arising and to think about what solutions to bring to them.
The paper “Rethinking Global Governance” defines the general objectives of
this effort—to reduce inequalities, establish sustainable development, and build
peace in a world of diversity—and frames some proposals for laying the new
 World Governance Index

foundations of governance.1 These proposals are derived from the big principles
of governance set out in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
They are also directly aligned with more recent, but equally important, texts such
as the Earth Summit Declaration (Rio, 1992), the Millennium Declaration (New
York, 2000), and the findings of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(Johannesburg, 2002).
A survey of these objectives and these basic texts has made it possible to determine
and select five large fields, called indicators, which, aggregated, constitute the WGI:
•­Peace and Security
•­Rule of Law
•­Human Rights and Participation
•­Sustainable Development
•­Human Development
Each of these indicators is broken down into several sub-indicators—a total of 13
sub-indicators are used—and each of these sub-indicators is the result of the aggre-
gation of several indexes (41 in all). Finally, the data used to calculate the indexes
and determine the WGI is taken from databases published annually by the main
international organizations and by NGOs specializing in the area of governance.
The result of this work is an index that hopes to be as complete as possible and
describes the state of world governance, not for theoretical, but for practical pur-
poses.

6
Usefulness and Uses of the WGI
1/ Arnaud Blin
and Gustavo Marin,
“Rethinking Global
Governance”, 2007,
http://www.world-
governance.org/spip.
php?article15&lang=en
Both a photograph and a means to induce action/reaction, the WGI has a
twofold dimension. An analytical dimension—it tries to provide as true a
reflection as possible of the state of world governance—and an operational
dimension—it must enable players to act or to react in the direction of a
more efficient, more democratic world governance more in phase with the
environment. The index was designed mainly to offer political decision mak-
ers, whatever their level (national, regional or international), companies,
and NGOs reliable, independent, and scrutinized information that will allow
them:
•­ to evaluate a state’s degree of governance
•­to identify its governance strengths and weaknesses
•­to monitor its evolutions over time
World Governance Index

Recourse to a very large number of variables makes the WGI a complete, prag-
matic, practical index that is also meant as an incentive.

Complete: The systems of currently developed indicators factor in only one

of the fields, one of the aspects of world governance. For the WGI, the selec-
tion and aggregation of the indexes making up the indicators make it possible
to obtain a WGI that gives a vision that is global, exhaustive, and precise all
at the same time.

Pragmatic: The WGI, an aggregation of several indexes and variables of

different and measurable natures, to varying degrees—some rely on facts
(number of inhabitants, for example) and others on perceptions (opinion-
poll outcomes)—translates abstract and subjective concepts into observable
and quantifiable data.

Practical: The WGI is presented here in the form of three tables.2 The first
table presents the world ranking in descending order, the second table re-
flects regional rankings, and the third table sums up, country by country, the
results for each of the five WGI constituent indicators.3 They will be updated
every year, making it possible to monitor evolutions closely (improvements
or regressions) over the years.

An incentive: The WGI is not only a warning bell, its intention is also to be
a means for action. It aims to provoke governance players to think and to ask
the right questions in order to act and to react

Despite a rigorous methodology, the results are nonetheless constrained by the lim-
its inherent to indicators. Like all indicators, the WGI informs, warns, and enables
7
action and guidance. Although it is particularly useful for “taking the temperature”
of world governance in the countries of the survey, its diagnosis is not, for all that,
absolute, in the medical sense of the term, nor does it dictate action priorities.
The process relies on a conscientious examination of multiple and varied data and
on a combination of sources, data, and methods. In the end, the WGI points to a
number of problems and shows possible leads, but the means to be implemented are
left to the appreciation of world-governance players.

This 2011 Report presents the WGI, version 2.0. It establishes new world and re- 2/ Many other detailed
tables are available at the
gional rankings of the countries included in the survey, a ranking factoring in the FnWG Web site:
www.world-governance.org
changes that have occurred since the first 2008 version of the index. For practical
reasons—availability and reliability of the data—it covers only 179 countries (of 3/ The categorization
the 192 UN Member States). In the medium run, it should cover all the coun- used for the regional
rankings is inspired
tries. from the United Nations
Development Program
(UNDP)’s categorization.
 World Governance Index

The 2011 report, the first update of a series we hope will be long, is intended for
the broadest possible audience of national, regional, and international governance
players, civil-society representatives, researchers, academics, company leaders,
NGOs, and the world of nonprofit organizations.

8
World Governance Index

Ximena Mandiola, Mid-day, 2007 (www.ximenamandiola.com)

Part I

Developin g t h e Wo r l d 9

Governanc e I n d e x

T
he World Governance Index is an assessment social, economic, and cultural systems that character-
tool aiming to offer a picture, both general and ize them.
detailed, of the state of governance throughout
Not one country in the world has succeeded to this
the world. The 2011 Report marks the outcome of
day in showing a degree of total perfection where
considerations following the first version, completed
governance is concerned. Each is constantly facing
in 2008 and updated in 2009. This new version,
the challenge of establishing and renewing the struc-
called version 2.0, has increased the number of in-
tures, institutions, and standards that contribute to
dexes to 41 (there were 37 in 2008).
good governance and to its search for improvement.
The number of countries surveyed, 179 in all, is iden- The WGI, as designed, reflects the efforts undertaken
tical to that of version 1.0 and is warranted by an ob- by the different countries in their quest for better
vious problem of availability and reliability of data. governance and to illustrate observed evolutions.
Please note, however, that the WGI applies uniform-
ly to all countries, whatever the different political,

Defining the World Governance
Index
Beyond the more-or-less complex definitions of what
world governance might be, beyond the more-or-less
subjective takes the concept cuts through, we prefer
to consider world governance as simply “the collec-
tive management of the planet.”
This definition may be broad, which can be con-
strued as a weakness, but it facilitates exploring all
the dimensions of what world governance could be.
This concept goes beyond the restrictive setting of
international relations, which, until recently, have
constituted the one and only prism through which
governance was perceived on a global level.
After having reviewed the voluminous literature on
world governance, the FnWG team became aware of
the numerous challenges that the WGI undertaking
involved. Evaluating world governance addresses a
twofold need. The idea is first to understand. Every-
body agrees that the world is in bad shape, and that
this is because world governance is in bad shape. Be-
fore even defining a “treatment protocol,” it is there-
fore of the essence to know what the patient’s condi-
tion is exactly.
Indicators, or systems of indicators, in the sense that
their role is to inform, seem to be the tools best adapt-
ed to get a clear picture of what world governance is
afflicted with and to understand what is happening.
Second, such evaluation is also needed to enable ac-
tion.
As a photograph at the service of world-governance
players and as a tool put at their disposal, the WGI
thus also has a twofold dimension: an analytical di-
10
mension—it must provide as true a reflection as pos-
sible of the state of world governance—and an opera-
tional dimension—it must enable players, whatever
their level, to act or to react in the direction of a more
efficient, more democratic world governance more in
phase with the environment. On first impression, the
first dimension seems relatively easy to measure, but
the operational dimension seems more delicate to
quantify.
World-governance goals
and fields
To get a precise picture of the goals of world govern-
ance, its situation, and its evolution, all of the funda-
mental domains in which it is exercised need to be
taken into account.
World Governance Index
These fundamental domains were originally writ-
ten into the two texts considered as the basic texts
of world governance: the Charter of the United Na-
tions, signed on June 26, 1945, and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948.
To “save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war . . . and to reaffirm faith in the fundamental hu-
man rights, in the dignity and the worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and
of nations at large, and to establish conditions under
which justice and respect for the obligations arising
from treaties and other sources of international law
can be maintained, and to promote social progress
and better standards in larger freedom”: these were,
in the wake of World War II, the guidelines for world
governance.
Three years later, the Universal Declaration of Hu-
man Rights was to reinforce the Charter and con-
stitute, in the minds of the leaders from all over the
world who adopted it, the roadmap to ensuring every
person’s rights, in all places and at all times.
We would have to wait until 1992 for the Earth Sum-
mit, held in Rio de Janeiro, to jump start awareness of
the importance of the fundamental domains of world
governance. As discussions developed, as the idea of
interdependence in the global village took hold, the
thinking expanded from considering only environ-
mental assets (air, water, and forests) to including the
whole of humankind’s common goods: health, edu-
cation, and human rights. This was the appearance
of global common goods, which Riccardo Petrella,
formerly Head of the European Commission’s FAST
program, was to define as: “the goods and services
that should be seen as essential to the security of liv-
ing together at the global level.”
Taking into account the geopolitical upheavals ensu-
ing from the end of the Cold War, the Millennium
Declaration, in 2000, confirmed the thinking on glo-
bal governance and reinforced the view that the dif-
ferent domains were all linked with one another. The
goals ensuing from the Millennium Declaration con-
stitute a blueprint for the advent of a world everyone
hopes will be better.
Aware of the complexity of the challenges to meet
and of the urgency to act, the heads of state and of
government meeting in New York from September
6 to 8, 2000, acknowledged their “collective respon-
sibility to uphold the principles of human dignity,
equality and equity at the global level” and set out to
defend them. They restated their determination “to
support all efforts [for the] resolution of disputes by
peaceful means and in conformity with the principles
of justice and international law, . . . respect for hu-
man rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the
World Governance Index
equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex,
language or religion and international cooperation in
solving international problems of an economic, so-
cial, cultural or humanitarian character.” They com-
mitted openly to “ensure that globalization becomes
a positive force for all the world’s people . . .” This
would be possible “only through broad and sustained
efforts to create a shared future, based upon our com-
mon humanity in all its diversity.”
The World Summit on Sustainable Development of
Johannesburg in 2002 underscored the urgent need
to take on the challenges of the twenty-first century
in compliance with the fundamental principles of
world governance, which were restated in the final
declaration of the summit. Seeking the best road to
follow for the principles of sustainable development
to be respected and their implementation to lead to
concrete results, state representatives confirmed dur-
ing the summit the considerable progress achieved in
the direction of a world consensus and the construc-
tion of a partnership among all the populations of the
planet. Sustainable development became the com-
mon goal of all humankind and everything was to be
put to work to achieve it.
The different concepts developed in the texts and at
the above-mentioned conferences clearly reveal that
the first goal of world governance is to define new
relations among human beings, among societies, and
between humankind and the biosphere.
Starting from this overall objective, the three main
goals that international institutions should adopt as
guidelines are:
Establishing the conditions for
sustainable development
The first duty of governance is to preserve the
long term. The imbalances generated by the cur-
rent form of development between humankind
and the biosphere have put the lives of our chil-
dren and grandchildren at risk.
The first common objective is therefore to change
the current development models to make them
compatible with the limited resources of the bio-
sphere in the long term. Material development
must be subordinated to human development.
The future of humankind cannot be guaranteed
unless concern for the complete development of
human beings—spiritual, intellectual, social, ar-
tistic, etc.—becomes the primary development
criterion.
Reducing inequalities
Sustainable development cannot be achieved by
reserving the natural resources of the planet for
a small minority that has the economic means to
acquire them and the military means to hold onto
them. Reducing inequalities is therefore not only
a moral duty or an act of compassion; it is also
a duty of justice and a condition for long-term
peace. Finding ways to conciliate the freedom of
all with respect of the dignity of all is the second
objective assigned to world governance.
Establishing lasting peace while
respecting diversity
Ecological diversity and cultural diversity are not
only unbending realities of the current world.
They constitute humankind’s major wealth. Peace
requires the recognition of a common belonging,
the search for a common good, and awareness of
unity, from grassroots communities to the entire
human family.
At every level of governance, both greater unity
and greater diversity must be achieved. It is the
ability to not oppose unity and diversity, but to
consider them as the two sides of the same coin,
that constitutes, from managing a district or a vil-
lage to managing the planet, the art of govern-
ance. This is the art that world governance needs
to practice at the global scale and help to practice
at all other levels.
These three objectives, as presented and stated here,
are perfectly articulated with the big traditional prin-
ciples of world governance: peace, security, democ- 11
racy, freedom, and equity.
We have thus selected, directly in keeping with these
major principles, the following domains, the detailed
study of which, in the form of sub-indicators and com-
posite indexes, make it possible to obtain the WGI:
• Peace and Security
• Rule of Law
• Human Rights and Participation
• Sustainable Development
• Human Development
 World Governance Index

World Governance Index 2011 – version 2.0

For each of the Indicator Sub-indicator Index

five above-
Peace and National Security Conflicts
mentioned Security
selected fields, Refugees and Asylum seekers
a detailed Displaced Persons
study has been Public Security Political Climate
conducted
Degree of Trust among Citizens
in order to
determine the Violent Crime
elements that Homicides per 100,000 inhabitants
constitute Rule of Law Body of Laws Ratification of Treaties
them (sub-
Property Rights
indicators)
and the data Judicial System Independence
(indexes) Effectiveness
that make it
Settlement of Contractual Disputes
possible to
produce a Corruption Corruption Perception index
WGI. In all, Human Rights Civil and Political Respect of Civil Rights
the 2011 WGI and Participation Rights
Respect for Physical Integrity Rights
– version 2.0
Freedom of the Press
is made up of 5
indicators, 13 Violence against the Press
sub-indicators Participation Participation in Political Life
and 41 Electoral Process and Pluralism
indexes.
Political Culture
Gender Women’s Political Rights
Discrimination /
Women’s Social Rights
Inequality
Women’s Economic Rights
Rate of Representation in National Parliaments
Sustainable Economic Sector GDP per capita
Development
GDP growth rate
12
Degree/level of Economic Openness
Cover Rate
Inflation rate
Ease in Starting a Business
Social Dimension GINI Coefficient (poverty and inequality)
Unemployment Rate
Ratification of International Labor Rights texts
Environmental Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity
Dimension
Environmental Sustainability
CO2 Emission Rate per capita
Environmental Performance
Human Development Human Development
Development
Well-being and Subjective Well-being
Happiness
Happiness
Quality of Life
World Governance Index
Methodology and Calculations
The World Governance Index is a composite index
aggregating nearly 8,500 data items taken from the
databases or the yearly reports of about thirty differ-
ent organizations.
The approach used to calculate the WGI is similar
to the one used by the UNDP to establish its Human
Development Index (HDI). For each of the indexes
and sub-indicators, all the collected raw data was res-
caled into a “closed” scale ranging from 0 to 1 (where
0 represent the worst result and 1 the best possible
score).
Every sub-indicator is the mathematical average of
the indexes composing it. This also applies to the
indicators Rule of Law, Human Rights and Partici-
pation, Sustainable Development, and Human De-
velopment, which are the mathematical average of
the sub-indicators composing them. Only the Peace
and Security indicator was weighted. It is made up
for two-thirds of it by the National Security sub-in-
dicator and for one-third of it by the Public Security
sub-indicator.
As a final result, the World Governance Index is the
mathematical average of the 5 indicators that con-
stitute it.
In some very rare cases, absence of data for one or
several countries was compensated, as needed, by as-
signing to them the reported regional average.
13

Part II
14
Results and Illustrations
T
he first of the three tables below presents the
WGI ranking for all countries in descending
order with for each country its rank in 2008.
The second table presents the ranking in descending
order at the regional level. The last table sums up, per
country in alphabetical order, the results obtained for
every indicator constituting the WGI.
Other tables, world ranking and regional ranking in
descending order, for each of the indicators constitut-
ing the WGI, are available on the Web site of the
Forum for a new World Governance.
Federica Matta, The World’s Eye N° 6, 2004 (www.federicamatta.com)
For each regional whole, we have also provided two
figures illustrating the results obtained by the highest-
ranking country and the lowest-ranking country, re-
spectively. Their results (red pentagon) can be easily
compared with the average world result (green pen-
tagon).
Each figure is in the form of a pentagon. Each angle
of the pentagon represents one of the five indicators
that constitute the WGI. To the right of the figure,
the country’s WGI is indicated with a red pointer and
is also easily compared with the world’s average WGI
(green pointer).
2011 WGI Global Ranking in Descending Order (with rank in 2008)
2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
2011 Ranking and WGI 2011 Ranking and WGI 2011 Ranking and WGI 2011 Ranking and WGI 2011 Ranking and WGI 2011 Ranking and WGI
Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
1 Norway 0.844 3 31 Mauritius 0.720 29 61 El Salvador 0.649 65 91 Ukraine 0.605 113 121 Papua New Guinea 0.569 133 151 Turkmenistan 0.526 160
2 Sweden 0.843 2 32 United States 0.720 27 62 Guyana 0.648 57 92 Bhutan 0.600 114 122 Laos 0.568 130 152 India 0.525 142
3 Finland 0.832 4 33 Lithuania 0.714 44 63 Ecuador 0.648 87 93 Senegal 0.599 112 123 Burkina Faso 0.566 144 153 Haiti 0.522 164
4 Iceland 0.830 1 34 South Korea 0.714 40 64 Macedonia 0.646 73 94 Turkey 0.599 103 124 Gambia 0.566 127 154 Swaziland 0.520 150
World Governance Index

5 Denmark 0.826 5 35 Hungary 0.703 39 65 Montenegro 0.643 104 95 Oman 0.598 78 125 Cambodia 0.562 166 155 Syria 0.518 143
6 New Zealand 0.825 8 36 Slovakia 0.702 46 66 Mexico 0.641 58 96 Indonesia 0.596 96 126 Benin 0.561 129 156 Guinea Bissau 0.514 154
7 Netherlands 0.813 7 37 Poland 0.700 48 67 Malaysia 0.641 55 97 Cuba 0.595 52 127 Mali 0.561 115 157 Nigeria 0.512 165
8 Switzerland 0.807 12 38 Italy 0.699 38 68 South Africa 0.638 124 98 Algeria 0.595 119 128 Saudi Arabia 0.561 138 158 Ivory Coast 0.509 163
9 Australia 0.806 11 39 St Vincent & Grenadines 0.697 25 69 Qatar 0.635 81 99 Brunei 0.594 106 129 Madagascar 0.560 101 159 Niger 0.508 148
10 Germany 0.801 10 40 Argentina 0.692 43 70 Paraguay 0.633 80 100 Honduras 0.594 76 130 Sri Lanka 0.560 125 160 Equatorial Guinea 0.506 155
11 Austria 0.801 6 41 Saint Lucia 0.687 34 71 Bolivia 0.632 95 101 Guatemala 0.594 100 131 Rwanda 0.559 137 161 Angola 0.505 166
12 Canada 0.796 13 42 Panama 0.686 47 72 Serbia 0.632 89 102 Kazakhstan 0.593 99 132 Libya 0.558 132 162 Cameroon 0.503 153
13 Ireland 0.788 15 43 Dominica 0.686 36 73 Dominican Rep. 0.632 66 103 East Timor 0.592 157 133 Egypt 0.557 120 163 Burundi 0.496 162
14 Luxemburg 0.778 9 44 Latvia 0.685 51 74 Botswana 0.628 84 104 Maldives 0.592 77 134 Uzbekistan 0.557 126 164 Yemen 0.490 141
15 France 0.758 21 45 Greece 0.679 41 75 Mongolia 0.627 61 105 Tonga 0.589 98 135 Zambia 0.556 146 165 Ethiopia 0.486 156
16 Belgium 0.758 14 46 Cape Verde 0.678 49 76 United Arab Emirates 0.620 88 106 Philippines 0.589 86 136 Uganda 0.556 170 166 Pakistan 0.480 159
17 Japan 0.752 22 47 Grenada 0.678 35 77 Moldavia 0.619 91 107 Belarus 0.587 121 137 Comoros 0.555 118 167 Iran 0.472 151
18 United Kingdom 0.750 18 48 Belize 0.674 45 78 Kuwait 0.617 94 108 Tajikistan 0.586 97 138 Nepal 0.554 145 168 Central Africa Rep. 0.467 169
19 Spain 0.750 17 49 Israel 0.671 54 79 Bahrain 0.617 75 109 Jordan 0.585 102 139 Mauritania 0.551 122 169 Erythrea 0.447 167
20 Costa Rica 0.749 19 50 Croatia 0.671 50 80 Ghana 0.616 70 110 Malawi 0.585 136 140 China 0.549 109 170 Chad 0.445 171
21 Portugal 0.738 30 51 Cyprus 0.668 28 81 Nicaragua 0.616 64 111 Georgia 0.584 110 141 Lebanon 0.543 128 171 Gaza / West Bank 0.438 177
22 Czech Republic 0.736 31 52 Brazil 0.662 69 82 Surinam 0.614 67 112 Armenia 0.583 105 142 Liberia 0.542 168 172 North Korea 0.433 173
23 Malta 0.736 20 53 Jamaica 0.662 71 83 Tunisia 0.611 56 113 Morocco 0.582 82 143 Bangladesh 0.541 140 173 Zimbabwe 0.432 172
24 Uruguay 0.733 32 54 Trinidad and Tobago 0.660 59 84 Fiji 0.609 53 114 Venezuela 0.578 111 144 Togo 0.539 147 174 Iraq 0.425 178
25 Chile 0.733 24 55 Peru 0.658 60 85 Thailand 0.609 92 115 Azerbaijan 0.578 131 145 Djibouti 0.536 152 175 Afghanistan 0.424 161
26 Bahamas 0.733 23 56 Bulgaria 0.658 62 86 São Tomé and Príncipe 0.609 72 116 Mozambique 0.578 117 146 Congo 0.536 134 176 Myanmar 0.413 174
27 Barbados 0.731 16 57 Albania 0.653 74 87 Gabon 0.609 83 117 Colombia 0.576 108 147 Kenya 0.535 149 177 Sudan 0.408 175
28 Singapore 0.724 33 58 Seychelles 0.653 37 88 Lesotho 0.607 107 118 Salomon Islands 0.575 93 148 Russia 0.534 135 178 DRC 0.408 176
29 Slovenia 0.723 26 59 Romania 0.651 63 89 Kirghizstan 0.607 79 119 Tanzania 0.572 116 149 Guinea 0.532 139 179 Somalia 0.293 179
30 Estonia 0.723 42 60 Namibia 0.650 68 90 Bosnia Herzegovina 0.606 90 120 Viet Nam 0.571 85 150 Sierra Leone 0.528 158 AVERAGE 0.616
15
 16
WGI Regional Rankings
Africa Eu oecd Latin America and the Caribbean Asia Pacific Arab States Cis Central Asia Balkans
Mauritius 0.720 Norway 0.844 Costa Rica 0.749 Singapore 0.724 Qatar 0.635 Croatia 0.671
Cape Verde 0.678 Sweden 0.843 Uruguay 0.733 Malaysia 0.641 United Arab Emirates 0.620 Albania 0.653
Seychelles 0.653 Finland 0.832 Chile 0.733 Mongolia 0.627 Kuwait 0.617 Macedonia 0.646
Namibia 0.650 Iceland 0.830 Bahamas 0.733 Fiji 0.609 Bahrain 0.617 Montenegro 0.643
South Africa 0.638 Denmark 0.826 Barbados 0.731 Thailand 0.609 Tunisia 0.611 Serbia 0.632
Botswana 0.628 New Zealand 0.825 St Vincent and the Grenadines 0.697 Bhutan 0.600 Oman 0.598 Moldavia 0.619
Ghana 0.616 Netherlands 0.813 Argentina 0.692 Indonesia 0.596 Algeria 0.595 Kirghizstan 0.607
São Tomé and Príncipe 0.609 Switzerland 0.807 Saint Lucia 0.687 Brunei 0.594 Jordan 0.585 Bosnia Herzegovina 0.606
Gabon 0.609 Australia 0.806 Panama 0.686 East Timor 0.592 Morocco 0.582 Ukraine 0.605
Lesotho 0.607 Germany 0.801 Dominica 0.686 Maldives 0.592 Saudi Arabia 0.561 Kazakhstan 0.593
Senegal 0.599 Austria 0.801 Grenada 0.678 Tonga 0.589 Libya 0.558 Belarus 0.587
Malawi 0.585 Canada 0.796 Belize 0.674 Philippines 0.589 Egypt 0.557 Tajikistan 0.586
Mozambique 0.578 Ireland 0.788 Brazil 0.662 Salomon Islands 0.575 Lebanon 0.543 Georgia 0.584
Tanzania 0.572 Luxemburg 0.778 Jamaica 0.662 Viet Nam 0.571 Djibouti 0.536 Armenia 0.583
Burkina Faso 0.566 France 0.758 Trinidad and Tobago 0.660 Papua New Guinea 0.569 Syria 0.518 Azerbaijan 0.578
Gambia 0.566 Belgium 0.758 Peru 0.658 Laos 0.568 Yemen 0.490 Uzbekistan 0.557
Benin 0.561 Japan 0.752 El Salvador 0.649 Cambodia 0.562 Gaza / West Bank 0.438 Russia 0.534
Mali 0.561 United Kingdom 0.750 Guyana 0.648 Sri Lanka 0.560 Iraq 0.425 Turkmenistan 0.526
Madagascar 0.560 Spain 0.750 Ecuador 0.648 Nepal 0.554 Sudan 0.408
Rwanda 0.559 Portugal 0.738 Paraguay 0.633 China 0.549 Somalia 0.293
Zambia 0.556 Czech Republic 0.736 Bolivia 0.632 Bangladesh 0.541
Uganda 0.556 Malta 0.736 Dominican Republic 0.632 India 0.525
Comoros 0.555 Slovenia 0.723 Nicaragua 0.616 Pakistan 0.480
Mauritania 0.551 Estonia 0.723 Surinam 0.614 Iran 0.472
Liberia 0.542 United States 0.720 Cuba 0.595 North Korea 0.433
Togo 0.539 Lithuania 0.714 Honduras 0.594 Afghanistan 0.424
Congo 0.536 South Korea 0.714 Guatemala 0.594 Myanmar 0.413
Kenya 0.535 Hungary 0.703 Venezuela 0.578
Guinea 0.532 Slovakia 0.702 Colombia 0.576
Sierra Leone 0.528 Poland 0.700 Haiti 0.522
Swaziland 0.520 Italy 0.699
Guinea Bissau 0.514 Latvia 0.685
Nigeria 0.512 Greece 0.679
Ivory Coast 0.509 Israel 0.671
Niger 0.508 Cyprus 0.668
Equatorial Guinea 0.506 Bulgaria 0.658
Angola 0.505 Romania 0.651
Cameroon 0.503 Mexico 0.641
Burundi 0.496 Turkey 0.599
Ethiopia 0.486
Central Africa Republic 0.467
Erythrea 0.447
Chad 0.445
Zimbabwe 0.432
World Governance Index

DRC 0.408
Average 0.551 Average 0.744 Average 0.655 Average 0.561 Average 0.539 Average 0.601
 t
t

nt

nt
nt
nt

en
en

a
meble

meble
me
me

y
y
y

p
p

pm n
I
I
I

pmable

s
s
s

rit d
rit d
rit d

lo a

w
w
w
o

lo a
l

l
lo n

ht n
ht n
ht n

WG
WG
WG

ve ain

R
R
R

cu an
cu an
cu an

La
La
La

ve ain
ve ma

ve m
S

S
ve ma

ve ain
S

H
H
H

Pe
Pe
Pe

Riguma
Riguma
Riguma

Se ace
Se ace
Se ace

of ule
of ule
of ule

De ust

De ust
De Hu

De Hu
De Hu

De ust
Afghanistan 0.617 0.334 0.350 0.496 0.324 0.424 France 0.910 0.784 0.735 0.598 0.765 0.758 Nigeria 0.777 0.464 0.368 0.544 0.407 0.512
South Africa 0.818 0.602 0.719 0.518 0.532 0.638 Gabon 0.876 0.449 0.483 0.664 0.571 0.609 Norway 0.985 0.828 0.936 0.666 0.806 0.844
Albania 0.920 0.544 0.592 0.608 0.603 0.653 Gambia 0.915 0.463 0.455 0.563 0.434 0.566 New Zealand 0.974 0.891 0.883 0.595 0.782 0.825
Algeria 0.865 0.498 0.443 0.579 0.589 0.595 Gaza / West Bank 0.762 0.216 0.384 0.484 0.344 0.438 Oman 0.957 0.537 0.400 0.496 0.600 0.598
Germany 0.947 0.848 0.802 0.609 0.801 0.801 Georgia 0.741 0.558 0.497 0.571 0.554 0.584 Uganda 0.793 0.456 0.577 0.566 0.387 0.556
Angola 0.843 0.284 0.480 0.561 0.358 0.505 Ghana 0.921 0.608 0.525 0.538 0.487 0.616 Uzbekistan 0.866 0.410 0.375 0.540 0.593 0.557
Saudi Arabia 0.823 0.471 0.293 0.508 0.709 0.561 Greece 0.908 0.566 0.664 0.545 0.712 0.679 Pakistan 0.704 0.365 0.340 0.524 0.467 0.480
Argentina 0.887 0.503 0.734 0.589 0.749 0.692 Grenada 0.927 0.503 0.742 0.573 0.645 0.678 Panama 0.919 0.524 0.651 0.590 0.745 0.686
Armenia 0.861 0.507 0.434 0.560 0.552 0.583 Guatemala 0.801 0.435 0.579 0.506 0.650 0.594 Papua New Guinea 0.893 0.358 0.532 0.582 0.480 0.569
Australia 0.949 0.850 0.836 0.599 0.797 0.806 Guinea 0.852 0.413 0.483 0.566 0.344 0.532 Paraguay 0.859 0.465 0.600 0.615 0.625 0.633
Austria 0.947 0.822 0.822 0.620 0.795 0.801 Guinea Bissau 0.891 0.341 0.434 0.550 0.352 0.514 Netherlands 0.958 0.812 0.877 0.604 0.813 0.813
Azerbaijan 0.803 0.489 0.389 0.639 0.571 0.578 Equatorial Guinea 0.856 0.343 0.345 0.554 0.433 0.506 Peru 0.846 0.539 0.638 0.618 0.651 0.658
World Governance Index

Bahamas 0.905 0.700 0.745 0.585 0.728 0.733 Guyana 0.888 0.481 0.675 0.582 0.617 0.648 Philippines 0.793 0.439 0.497 0.577 0.638 0.589
Bahrain 0.894 0.576 0.463 0.478 0.675 0.617 Haiti 0.839 0.348 0.497 0.476 0.449 0.522 Poland 0.957 0.645 0.651 0.565 0.683 0.700
Bangladesh 0.794 0.359 0.482 0.562 0.510 0.541 Honduras 0.808 0.459 0.525 0.518 0.661 0.594 Portugal 0.946 0.717 0.767 0.585 0.677 0.738
Barbados 0.913 0.728 0.697 0.578 0.738 0.731 Hungary 0.929 0.670 0.651 0.589 0.675 0.703 Qatar 0.945 0.665 0.369 0.556 0.641 0.635
Belarus 0.872 0.439 0.503 0.578 0.541 0.587 Salomon Islands 0.918 0.428 0.468 0.481 0.577 0.575 DRC 0.607 0.319 0.325 0.555 0.234 0.408
Belgium 0.869 0.757 0.813 0.568 0.782 0.758 India 0.653 0.442 0.493 0.502 0.535 0.525 Dominican Republic 0.838 0.474 0.574 0.557 0.716 0.632
Belize 0.912 0.532 0.678 0.564 0.683 0.674 Indonesia 0.806 0.462 0.533 0.558 0.621 0.596 Czech Republic 0.962 0.655 0.757 0.592 0.712 0.736
Benin 0.913 0.409 0.547 0.536 0.402 0.561 Iraq 0.545 0.327 0.417 0.486 0.350 0.425 Romania 0.899 0.582 0.569 0.564 0.639 0.651
Bhutan 0.685 0.540 0.566 0.550 0.660 0.600 Iran 0.774 0.374 0.104 0.507 0.600 0.472 United Kingdom 0.896 0.804 0.716 0.584 0.753 0.750
Bolivia 0.866 0.443 0.646 0.606 0.600 0.632 Ireland 0.983 0.810 0.760 0.611 0.775 0.788 Russia 0.675 0.448 0.431 0.575 0.541 0.534
Bosnia Herzegovina 0.812 0.500 0.570 0.543 0.607 0.606 Iceland 0.971 0.835 0.935 0.648 0.761 0.830 Rwanda 0.847 0.522 0.509 0.569 0.351 0.559
Botswana 0.895 0.612 0.640 0.487 0.506 0.628 Israel 0.785 0.655 0.609 0.564 0.744 0.671 Saint Lucia 0.885 0.642 0.671 0.552 0.686 0.687
Brazil 0.833 0.585 0.613 0.583 0.697 0.662 Italy 0.928 0.544 0.695 0.574 0.757 0.699 São Tomé and Príncipe 0.944 0.394 0.597 0.538 0.572 0.609
Brunei 0.938 0.461 0.344 0.512 0.717 0.594 Jamaica 0.825 0.567 0.656 0.539 0.722 0.662 Senegal 0.898 0.540 0.583 0.539 0.436 0.599
Bulgaria 0.935 0.549 0.639 0.568 0.599 0.658 Japan 0.949 0.797 0.701 0.579 0.737 0.752 Serbia 0.774 0.553 0.650 0.563 0.618 0.632
Burkina Faso 0.897 0.514 0.528 0.594 0.297 0.566 Jordan 0.862 0.539 0.388 0.530 0.606 0.585 Seychelles 0.917 0.569 0.583 0.625 0.570 0.653
Burundi 0.742 0.363 0.575 0.571 0.229 0.496 Kazakhstan 0.887 0.507 0.390 0.592 0.588 0.593 Sierra Leone 0.884 0.419 0.516 0.516 0.305 0.528
Cambodia 0.856 0.430 0.502 0.536 0.484 0.562 Kenya 0.795 0.436 0.474 0.536 0.435 0.535 Singapore 0.959 0.755 0.577 0.592 0.738 0.724
Cameroon 0.850 0.343 0.365 0.553 0.402 0.503 Kirghizstan 0.906 0.455 0.535 0.556 0.585 0.607 Slovakia 0.938 0.639 0.642 0.614 0.676 0.702
Canada 0.947 0.813 0.852 0.583 0.784 0.796 Kuwait 0.933 0.571 0.399 0.543 0.641 0.617 Slovenia 0.971 0.656 0.666 0.595 0.728 0.723
Cape Verde 0.917 0.653 0.735 0.546 0.540 0.678 Laos 0.897 0.422 0.463 0.542 0.515 0.568 Somalia 0.419 0.224 0.130 0.421 0.272 0.293
Central Africa Republic 0.699 0.351 0.388 0.589 0.308 0.467 Lesotho 0.864 0.564 0.677 0.568 0.365 0.607 Sudan 0.566 0.337 0.340 0.501 0.297 0.408
Chile 0.897 0.803 0.665 0.583 0.715 0.733 Latvia 0.927 0.637 0.652 0.599 0.612 0.685 Sri Lanka 0.713 0.443 0.444 0.570 0.628 0.560
China 0.791 0.492 0.287 0.529 0.644 0.549 Lebanon 0.736 0.410 0.505 0.533 0.532 0.543 St Vincent and the Grenadines 0.855 0.769 0.742 0.583 0.536 0.697
Cyprus 0.680 0.714 0.671 0.550 0.726 0.668 Liberia 0.852 0.359 0.634 0.583 0.280 0.542 Sweden 0.951 0.864 0.937 0.664 0.800 0.843
Colombia 0.600 0.479 0.477 0.597 0.725 0.576 Libya 0.892 0.357 0.370 0.559 0.611 0.558 Switzerland 0.954 0.810 0.798 0.645 0.827 0.807
Comoros 0.876 0.400 0.445 0.555 0.498 0.555 Lithuania 0.958 0.690 0.696 0.592 0.636 0.714 Surinam 0.909 0.404 0.619 0.473 0.668 0.614
Congo 0.850 0.325 0.433 0.621 0.452 0.536 Luxemburg 0.951 0.802 0.818 0.583 0.737 0.778 Swaziland 0.822 0.433 0.409 0.552 0.383 0.520
Recapitulation Table per Country for the Five WGI Indicators

North Korea 0.801 0.321 0.251 0.367 0.426 0.433 Macedonia 0.895 0.563 0.667 0.531 0.574 0.646 Syria 0.816 0.399 0.284 0.544 0.547 0.518
South Korea 0.939 0.698 0.687 0.525 0.721 0.714 Madagascar 0.889 0.413 0.486 0.573 0.437 0.560 Tajikistan 0.897 0.448 0.459 0.550 0.578 0.586
Costa Rica 0.913 0.633 0.811 0.594 0.792 0.749 Malaysia 0.889 0.508 0.530 0.562 0.715 0.641 Tanzania 0.891 0.458 0.592 0.554 0.366 0.572
Ivory Coast 0.828 0.412 0.409 0.545 0.351 0.509 Malawi 0.875 0.543 0.541 0.582 0.384 0.585 Chad 0.732 0.314 0.301 0.574 0.302 0.445
Croatia 0.916 0.570 0.612 0.579 0.679 0.671 Maldives 0.903 0.452 0.468 0.521 0.613 0.592 Thailand 0.809 0.520 0.529 0.563 0.626 0.609
Cuba 0.880 0.366 0.509 0.546 0.677 0.595 Mali 0.881 0.460 0.581 0.550 0.334 0.561 East Timor 0.866 0.352 0.694 0.526 0.524 0.592
Denmark 0.957 0.856 0.921 0.616 0.779 0.826 Malta 0.952 0.681 0.715 0.557 0.773 0.736 Togo 0.882 0.416 0.476 0.547 0.372 0.539
Djibouti 0.916 0.357 0.463 0.554 0.392 0.536 Morocco 0.865 0.508 0.418 0.548 0.570 0.582 Tonga 0.902 0.440 0.419 0.521 0.665 0.589
Dominica 0.867 0.609 0.653 0.581 0.718 0.686 Mauritius 0.963 0.632 0.708 0.584 0.712 0.720 Trinidad and Tobago 0.856 0.477 0.741 0.534 0.694 0.660
Egypt 0.840 0.497 0.326 0.547 0.575 0.557 Mauritania 0.830 0.452 0.500 0.550 0.426 0.551 Tunisia 0.905 0.545 0.392 0.560 0.654 0.611
El Salvador 0.831 0.566 0.619 0.560 0.668 0.649 Mexico 0.794 0.581 0.563 0.544 0.723 0.641 Turkmenistan 0.907 0.376 0.347 0.536 0.464 0.526
United Arab Emirates 0.940 0.540 0.459 0.498 0.665 0.620 Moldavia 0.873 0.539 0.587 0.556 0.541 0.619 Turkey 0.795 0.595 0.460 0.557 0.586 0.599
Ecuador 0.878 0.489 0.643 0.573 0.657 0.648 Mongolia 0.895 0.536 0.562 0.564 0.576 0.627 Ukraine 0.886 0.514 0.523 0.562 0.538 0.605
Erythrea 0.778 0.306 0.278 0.497 0.378 0.447 Montenegro 0.913 0.522 0.617 0.548 0.612 0.643 Uruguay 0.949 0.725 0.720 0.599 0.671 0.733
Spain 0.878 0.741 0.800 0.569 0.761 0.750 Mozambique 0.903 0.449 0.625 0.589 0.323 0.578 Venezuela 0.798 0.345 0.542 0.520 0.687 0.578
Estonia 0.924 0.741 0.741 0.589 0.619 0.723 Myanmar 0.704 0.297 0.129 0.480 0.455 0.413 Viet Nam 0.882 0.420 0.390 0.549 0.613 0.571
United States 0.856 0.729 0.769 0.483 0.762 0.720 Namibia 0.912 0.618 0.669 0.520 0.533 0.650 Yemen 0.787 0.392 0.272 0.535 0.466 0.490
Ethiopia 0.765 0.409 0.348 0.579 0.328 0.486 Nepal 0.804 0.438 0.530 0.517 0.480 0.554 Zambia 0.902 0.466 0.515 0.521 0.378 0.556
Fiji 0.911 0.505 0.421 0.563 0.647 0.609 Nicaragua 0.863 0.495 0.605 0.505 0.611 0.616 Zimbabwe 0.710 0.366 0.384 0.551 0.151 0.432
Finland 0.965 0.866 0.891 0.641 0.797 0.832 Niger 0.820 0.419 0.477 0.542 0.281 0.508 Averages 0.859 0.528 0.557 0.558 0.577 0.616
17
 World Governance Index

18

Patrick Cabin, The Queue, 2007 © ADAGP, Banque d’images, Paris 2011
World Governance Index

EU / OECD Figures

19
 World Governance Index

Latin America / The Caribbean Figures

20
World Governance Index

Africa Figures

21
 World Governance Index

Asia Pacific Figures

22
World Governance Index

CIS / Central Asia / Balkans Figures

23
 World Governance Index

Arab States Figures

24
World Governance Index
Vassily Kandinsky, The Fat and the Thin © ADAGP/BPK, Berlin, Dist.RM N/ image BStGS
CONCLUSION
O
ne of the perverse effects of indicators is
that often their purpose is eclipsed by a final
ranking that for some can become obsessive,
whereas for others, it seems to have no value. The
point is not, once this survey is completed, to use the
results to hand out good or bad points. It is in fact
essential to look beyond the rankings shown in these
different tables. What is most important is to show
the state of world governance through the selected
survey criteria as well through the indicators, the sub-
indicators, and indexes that constitute them.
This survey does not claim to be exhaustive. Our
choices led to selecting only five areas of survey and
to limiting their field of application to nation-states
as players. Nation-states constitute a legal framework
and a form of political and social organization inher-
25
ited from a history and culture sometimes thousands
of years old. It is hence in this capacity that they are
among the most important players in world govern-
ance, and it is for this reason that the result of the
present survey provides a good indication of the cur-
rent state of world governance.
A number of other players will have to be taken into
consideration in the future. Identifying these players
is not a problem in itself: they are Intergovernmen-
tal Organizations (IGOs), NGOs and enterprises of
global dimension. A more delicate aspect will be to
determine what criteria to use. From the simple point
of view of nation-states, it is relatively easy to define
a number of general criteria common to all nation-
states. Given their general and common character,
there is plenty of easily exploitable data.
 World Governance Index

The challenge will be different when it comes to oth-
er players. In France, the recent and significant mal-
functioning of a French NGO accused of trafficking
children early in 2008, amply conveyed by the me-
dia, has contributed to rekindling the debate on the
governance of non-state actors. It is therefore natural
to raise the question of governance within this fuzzy
mass of organizations.
In the same way that the five indicators of this survey
make it possible to assess the performance of nation-
states in the area of governance, other indicators
should be able to make it possible to evaluate the
impact of IGOs, NGOs and enterprises of global di-
mension. Evaluating the “responsibility and account-
ability” of these players should not stop at theory. The
idea is to assess the way in which these players com-
mit to factoring their beneficiaries’ needs into their
decisions, and the way in which they fulfill this com-
mitment.
As long as we are not able to find the ways and the
means to implement general and enlightened partici-
pation of the beneficiaries of their actions, any an-
swer to the world’s challenges is bound to fail.
The ultimate goal of the WGI is therefore part of a
long-term process. On the basis of the situation it de-
scribes and of its diagnosis, it must enable actors in
charge of governance to raise the right questions in
order to consider solutions. In the end, it is about giv-
ing body to a world governance that can address the
world’s challenges in the years to come.
The team that has worked on this WGI hopes to have
made a modest contribution to a better perception of
world governance. In its current version, the WGI is
certainly not perfect. All the same, it has the virtue
of existing. The remarks that it will call forth, the
questions that it will raise, the suggestions that it will
inspire are all obviously welcome.

26
 COPYRIGHT APPENDIX

You are free:

to Share – to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

to Remix – to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but
not
 in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Si Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting
work only under the same or similar license to this one.


• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
• Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
• Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.

This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code. See the full license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/fr/legalcode.
 World Governance Index

WGI
World Governance Index

After the 1648 Westphalian revolution that placed the modern

state at the heart of international relations and planted the first
seeds of international law, contemporary times have witnessed
the emergence of a form of world governance that transcends the
state and is putting other players on stage: NGOs, corporations,
and civil society. It has now become vital, no longer to secure bal-
ance of power by reaching a compromise among different national
interests, but to manage the planet collectively, including in its
environmental dimension.
This evolution, both rapid and chaotic—a passing of the baton,
as it were, from yesterday’s conventional international relations to
tomorrow’s world governance—is complicated to perceive and to
grasp. The World Governance Index (WGI) constitutes a first at-
tempt to measure these transformations. It is intended first to offer
a clearer view of the changes taking place, but it is also designed
as a reliable tool to help define the better course for tomorrow and
to provide a greater understanding of what “world governance”
is. Like any index, the WGI is not perfect given that it relies on
available data, most of which is provided by states. Nonetheless,
the WGI and its various constituent indicators open an interesting
window on the new world that is coming into view in a thick fog
of uncertainty.
28
The World Governance Index was designed and developed by a
Forum for a new World Governance research team directed by
Renaud François and advised by Gustavo Marin and Arnaud Blin.
Prop osal Pa per s Series

www.world-governance.org

This Proposals Paper is published with the support of the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation